folks:

I'm guessing (without knowing that much about it) that one of the reasons the US objected to nuclear-tipped missiles being located in its backyard, during the Cuban missile crisis and perhaps at other times, is that it was particularly justified in objecting to such weapons being located so close by. Likewise, from what I can tell, a reason that Russia has offered for objecting to countries on its borders joining NATO is that this would confer upon the countries the ability to locate nuclear-tipped missiles at Russia's doorstep. While it is in theory "nice" that we have portrayed ourselves as trying to do everything we can for Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, it looks to me like we may have provided Russia a pretext it wanted to enter this period of murderous nouveau-empire-rebuilding. What was gained by so encouraging Ukraine to rattle sabers?

The bear is out of the cage now, and perhaps extraordinarily sharp and knowledgeable psychologists can suggest the best way to handle that situation once that threshold is passed, but it would be great if I was not the only person here trying to discuss in a serious way and understand that the US may well have made a fatal (for Ukrainians) blunder in its approach to post-cold-war NATO membership questions, and it may be doubling down on that same blunder. At least one counter-argument would be that, regardless of whether that was a blunder before, the reality now may be that the best way to contain Russian aggression now is to strengthen NATO. I don't know.

I’m surprised Finland is not already a NATO member with all the problems they’ve had with the Russians. The primary purpose of NATO was to deter Russian aggression after they established ruthless communist regimes in all the countries they occupied after WW ll. Who can blame Eastern European countries for wanting to be in NATO after that? To bad the Ukraine wasn’t admitted to NATO sooner. Then this war might have been adverted.

if putin is gonna use nukes, he is gonna use them. we can't let that threat permit him to have his way. what would be the point of opposing him at all.